T-L-C Systems, B-287452, June 18, 2001

B-287452 Jun 18, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights As was required by the solicitation. The RFP was issued under the streamlined commercial acquisition procedures pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6. Prospective offerors were instructed to contact the agency to receive the complete statement of work (SOW) and maps for the system. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to offer the government the best value. Proposals were limited to 35 pages in length and offerors were cautioned that the failure to address any item may be cause for proposal rejection. During discussions T-L-C was notified that it had failed to provide a proposal that addressed the technical factors and each of the requirements in the SOW as required by the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: T-L-C Systems File: B-287452 Date: June 18, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION T-L-C Systems protests the award of a contract to Monaco Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA13-01-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Iowa Army National Guard, for the delivery and installation of a radio frequency fire alarm communication system. T-L-C contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal and failed to provide it with meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued under the streamlined commercial acquisition procedures pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, using a combined synopsis/solicitation posted on the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) Internet site on January 5, 2001. The synopsis/solicitation provided that "this announcement constitutes the only solicitation," and included a "brief description" of the system to be procured. Agency Report, Tab 38, CBD Notice/Solicitation. Prospective offerors were instructed to contact the agency to receive the complete statement of work (SOW) and maps for the system. Id. at 2. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to offer the government the best value, considering the following factors: technical ability of the system proposed, technical support, and past performance. The solicitation/synopsis included the following instructions: The offeror shall submit a written proposal addressing all the technical factors outlined above. The proposal shall provide documentation, which addresses their ability to meet or exceed the requirements of each paragraph in the statement of work or provides an explanation of the variations/deficiencies in their proposal. Id. Proposals were limited to 35 pages in length and offerors were cautioned that the failure to address any item may be cause for proposal rejection. Id. On February 5, the agency received four proposals in response to the synopsis/solicitation. T-L-C's submission included its product literature; however, it failed to address the technical factors and how its proposed system met each of the SOW requirements. Agency Report, Tab 31, T-L-C Proposal. During discussions T-L-C was notified that it had failed to provide a proposal that addressed the technical factors and each of the requirements in the SOW as required by the solicitation, and offered T-L-C the opportunity to make its proposal responsive to the solicitation. Agency Report, Tab 25, Agency Discussion Letter to T-L-C. The protester then filed an agency-level protest on March 5. /1/ In this protest, T-L-C referenced the agency's previous attempt to purchase this fire alarm communication system from a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Since T-L-C's proposed system had been determined acceptable during that competion, it questioned how the agency could determine its proposal here for the identical system was unacceptable. Agency Report, Tab 18, T-L-C's Agency Level Protest. The agency responded, by letter dated March 9, informing T-L-C that its submission lacked a "paragraph by paragraph summary" of how its system complied with the SOW requirements, as required in the solicitation, and asked the protester to either state that they wanted the agency to review the proposal as submitted, or to submit the requested information. The letter went on to state that T-L-C's failure to submit any information would result in the rejection of its proposal. Agency Report, Tab 15, Army's Response to T-L-C's Agency-Level Protest. /2/ On March 10, the protester withdrew its agency-level protest ("predicated upon [the Army's] approval of [T-L-C's] proposal as submitted"), and did not submit any additional information. Agency Report, Tab 14, T-L-C's Withdrawal of Agency Level Protest. The agency evaluated the proposals and found that it could not determine whether T-L-C's proposal met all of the SOW requirements. The agency also determined that Monaco's acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 12, Selection Board's Minutes.